The other day we got an e-mail from Jim, a reader in LA, who wrote:
"My question regards the care and feeding of headphones. From the coconut-halves sets of my youth to the in-ear sets of today, I've never failed to kill a set of 'phones within a few months. Even the two Shure sets I bought in the past year (E2C and SE110) and have tried to treat very carefully, have developed cracks and shorts where they loop over the ear."
Ah, Jim, I share your pain. A few weeks ago, my trusty Shure E4Cs developed some cracks in the plastic cord cover at the point where the cord meets the 'bud. I can't complain too much, because I've had the 'buds for four years, but it still hurts. (I put some electrical tape around the connection and the 'buds still work, but it's not a great look and the tape keeps sliding down the cord and making it sticky).
My boss has your kind of luck. Recently, he walked in and unceremoniously wrapped a set of Skull Candy earphones around the door handle in my office, announcing, "I killed another pair." He seems to destroy headphones as quickly as you do, Jim.
The problem with headphones is that they've become an integral part of many people's lives. While you can protect your iPod or iPhone (or whatever portable-media player you may own) with a case, the same is not true of a pair of headphones. They're left exposed to the elements; they get caught on objects; they get yanked; and then they fail you. Sometimes, the damage isn't visible; you just hear that crackle in one or both ears and you realize you're dealing with the dreaded "short" in either your headphone cord or the headphone jack on your device.
You vow never to buy an expensive pair of 'buds again. But, then, when you buy a cheap pair, you can't deal with the mediocre sound. It's a vicious circle.
So, what's the solution? Well, you can follow some of the care tips my colleague Jasmine France offers. But just as importantly, here are some other steps you can take:
1. Before you buy a set of headphones/earphones, really take a close look at the construction.
Ideally, you want a set that has an elbow-style plug and has a fairly thick cord. Some companies, such as Altec Lansing, are moving to a shoelace-style cord covering that may or may not be more durable, but is at least more tangle resistant.
Companies like Shure do put their headphones through durability tests. "Our cables are thicker than average cables, because they are required to pass exhaustive quality tests," a PR rep told me. Those tests involve "everything from extreme temperature fluctuations to constant winding/rewinding around portable devices." And while Shure says its earphones are designed to deal with low- and high-"operational" temperatures (0 to 135 degrees F), when you walk around in the extreme cold, most cables will harden. They're not supposed to crack, but it can certainly happen.
2. Whenever you buy a set of headphones, keep the sales receipt.
Some headphones have longer warranties (up to two years), but you'll need your proof of purchase to get them replaced. Shure offers a two-year warranty on its earphones, and Etymotic offers up to two years on certain models. However, in most cases, you're looking at one year.
3. If your headphones break within the warranty period, start with the retailer that sold you the headphones to get a replacement.
But if you have a problem, contact the manufacturer directly.
4. If your headphones do break, complain.
Companies tend to keep records of complaints, and if it turns out to be a trend, they'll generally do something about it. Often, people just toss out their damaged earphones and buy a new pair.
5. Don't try to fix your headphones yourself.
Unless you really know what you're doing, there's a good chance you'll make a bad situation worse.
6. While your broken headphones may be out of the warranty period, some companies may offer to replace your model at a discount.
Shure offers replacements at special rates (in some cases, at a third of the list price). Here's a link to its replacement fee information page.
Got any headphone horror stories, tips, or recommendations for well-built headphones/earphones? Feel free to post them to the comments section. And if you have any broken headphones lying around, take a picture and e-mail it to me (see link in bio below) and I'll add it to our graveyard slideshow.
Additional reading: How to get the best sound from in-ear headphones.
I recently trashed the third-generation Shuffle in a blog post, saying it was "a disaster."
Well, I meant it. A buttonless, tiny, entry-level MP3 with special "VoiceOver" features just seems so unnecessary. But then a reader made an interesting point to me. What if the lead got buried in Apple's Shuffle announcement?
Is Apple's small talk really a precursor to big interface changes across its entire line?
(Credit: Apple)While everyone was harping about how the thing's really small (I say too small), requires an adapter for you to use your own headphones, and has a voice-over feature that doesn't seem to really add much (we know what our favorite songs are, right?), the real story may be that Apple's getting ready to launch all this voice stuff across its whole line of mobile products.
The reader, Charles, who e-mailed me, asks this question: "Would you have thought to design in 'voice report,' plus device-decentralized 'hard controls,' into an $80 music-player appliance?"
No. So, why do you do it?
"Well," he goes on, "if you were testing consumer acceptance of a new product module...you'd probably do well not just to tweak, but educate, your adopter audience on the sensory essentials of your new interface. Technology is best delivered in metered morsels to be digested."
I agree--and I suspect this voice-over introduction is part of a companywide shift for Apple into the voice arena and a new user interface mode. But think in these terms: instead of it being a one-way street from machine to man (or woman), the more advanced version will go both ways. You'll be able to talk to your device--whether an iPod Classic, iPod Touch, iPhone, or even the rumored Apple Netbook, a device that allegedly has a touch screen and perhaps minimal hard controls--and it will talk back to you. Of course, many mobile phones have voice recognition features today, but Apple's version--for better or worse--will take voice control to a whole new level.
Charles notes that Apple usually has pretty good reasons for its design decisions and that Steve Jobs said early on that iPods were about "navigating content." So while this first implementation may look a little contrived and gimmicky, if Apple can really pull off a user interface paradigm shift, we may really want to buy an overpriced adapter and a whole new set of voice-over-compatible headphones to take advantage of this fantastic new interface.
We're still a ways away from being able to talk to our computers like Dave talks to HAL in the movie "2001: A Space Odyssey." But as I sit here writing this column, feeling the carpal tunnel creeping into the hands and wrists, I'd welcome the idea of turning to my Mac and saying, "Dude (yes, my computer's name is Dude), here are few scattered thoughts. Please write a column."
That would be nice. But in the short term, we'll get to see what Apple's rolling out at its iPhone 3.0 software event on March 17. I'm betting we're going to be hearing a lot more about VoiceOver. And we're going to be hearing a lot more about VoiceOver-compatible accessories that have built-in mics that enable you to record notes, navigate content with your voice, and maybe even dictate e-mails instead of typing them.
Of course, I could be wrong. And even if I am right, I'm not sure that a shift to a voice-based user interface mode will turn out well--or that it's the right way to go. But I'm all ears as I sit here wondering whether Apple's "Small Talk" headline will become "Big Talk" in the days to come.
What do you guys think?
When you hear about the music industry these days, there are often figures claiming that digital music downloads--led by new initiatives from the likes of Amazon, Nokia, MySpace, and, of course, Apple--are up year-over-year by more than 25 percent, and now account for about 20 percent of overall music sales. But let's get the numbers straight. Despite some bright spots, the vast majority of digital downloads are unauthorized and cost nothing. In fact, a recent report by IFPI, a body that promotes and "safeguards" digital music, says that in 2008 a whopping 95 percent of all music downloads were illegal. Sure, IFPI has an interest in perhaps inflating that stat a bit, but judging from what I've seen out there, I'd say it's still a very high percentage.
No difference: U2's upcoming album No Line on the Horizon will likely cost the same as a CD or digital download--and that doesn't make sense.
(Credit: Wikipedia)All that said, let's pretend for a moment that in some highly improbable scenario, someone or something manages to get pirating totally under control and people are left having to pay for their music. Would sales suddenly take off? Would all be well again in the music industry?
Probably not. The problem is--and has always been ever since digital downloads emerged--that the digital stuff is way too expensive, and that's made a lot of folks feel the music industry is out to rip them off (in other words, there isn't a whole lot of sympathy for music companies). It certainly doesn't help matters that the economy today is in the crapper and the prices are largely unchanged. (Just look at Apple's recent announcement on price changes for its iTunes Store).
Now, I'm not saying anything new here. Plenty of pundits have said the music industry is broken and is just trying to eke out the last bit of good revenue from a few star artists in a shattered business model that ultimately needs to be completely blown up.
In the past, I've argued for a subscription service for iTunes and a number of we editors here at CNET are fans of Rhapsody, which charges a relatively affordable $12.99 a month to rent all the music you want (2 bucks more to move it on and off your Rhapsody-compatible portable music player). But there are still plenty of people who want to own their music. Some still buy it legally and a lot of so-called purists still buy CDs. (Call me old-school, but I have to admit that if the price is equal or close, which it often is, I prefer to pick up the physical disc over the digital album. Then I convert it to digital and throw the CD into my 400-disc CD changer).
I'm not going to get into a full-blown discussion of what will turn dishonest downloaders into honest buyers. As many of you are already aware, a lot of people don't think downloading music amounts to stealing. I've seen plenty of message-board posts from users saying that downloading free tunes isn't thievery, since it's just bits and bytes you're grabbing; and besides, they wouldn't have paid for the thing anyway, so it's better for the artist that they were exposed to their music. This column isn't about that (feel free to add your own comments, however).
What I'm asking is simply this: Those of you who rarely buy music--what would you be willing to pay for a digital album (or single)? In other words, what price would make you change your view of the music industry and make you want to open your wallet a little more?
I'd be a lot happier with $4.99 for a download of a new release and anywhere from $1.99 to $2.99 for older releases. Singles should be $.49.
Now, if you're an Amazon user, you may have noticed that it's recently had some special "Daily Deals" on digital albums such as $4.99 for Coldplay's Viva La Vida and $1.99 for its older albums and Prince's Purple Rain. Meanwhile, Nine Inch Nails' Ghosts I-IV is permanently priced at $5.
Word is that some of these specials are loss-leaders for Amazon that are simply designed to get people buying digital music. But that's not the way it should be. U2's upcoming No Line on the Horizon is available for preorder on CD for $9.99. The digital version will likely be priced within a dollar. (Some $9.99 CDs cost $8.99 as an MP3 download on Amazon). Instead, I think it should be $4.99 to download at launch. I mean, an eco-friendly band like U2 should want its fans to go digital and not buy any sort of physical disc and paper and plastic packaging. To encourage that, Bono should tell the band's label, Interscope Records, to price the digital version significantly lower. Am I wrong?
What do you guys think?
More memory, please: Waiting for the iPhone to go to 32GB and the Touch to hit 64GB.
(Credit: Apple)OK, now that CES and Macworld are behind us, it's time to take a moment to ponder just what was missing. For me anyway the biggest letdown was the absence of any word on a higher-capacity iPod Touch. As a non-iPhone guy with a slight bit of iPhone envy, I've had my eye on the 2G Touch for the last three months. But like a lot of people, I've been waiting either for the price of the 32GB version to come down or to pay not much more for a 64GB model, which has been making the rounds in the rumor mill and message boards for months.
Previously, I wrote a column about why it was the wrong time to buy an iPod. So, in a sense, you could call this column, "Why it's almost the right time to buy an iPod...or at least an iPod Touch." I just think the Touch needs one more rev to be a near-ideal device. (Even if Apple doesn't want to sell my products in its App Store, I still have no problem recommending its products to readers.) Of course, a 128GB model would be perfect, but I could live with a 64GB version (or cheaper 32GB model). That would enable you to store a decent-size music collection, a good amount of video, and lots of apps--and maybe even leave you with a little room to grow.
Sure, this would be a moot point if Apple had given us a micro-SD card slot, but Apple isn't big on the whole memory-expansion concept. Nor does it seem too keen on removable batteries (or stereo Bluetooth, for that matter). While I still find that irritating, at this point the positives appear to comfortably outweigh the negatives. But now I'm looking to maximize my purchase, knowing this precious $400 device might only hold out for 2-3 years if I don't happen to lose it, damage it, or have it stolen.
I've had pretty good luck with my iPods (for the record, last year I bought a refurbished Nano 4GB for $100). But there's been plenty of copy written about iPods failing right after warranties expire and assorted other iPod disasters. I do think it helps to go with flash memory--which is what's in the iPhone and Touch and has no moving parts--rather than a hard drive. But, of course, the highest-capacity flash-memory chips, at least initially, tend to be rather pricey.
Which brings us to the questions: so when the heck is the 64GB version coming out and how much will it cost? Well, the prices for flash memory have been dropping precipitously. Once new, smaller, 34 nanometer 32GB chips (just arriving now) start being produced in volume, we should see not only a 64GB Touch but a 32GB iPhone. And if the past is anything to go by, Apple last increased the capacities of its iPod Touch line on February 5, 2008, a Tuesday. So you could look to Tuesday, February 3 or Tuesday, February 10 (Apple tends to make its announcements on Tuesdays) as possible release days.
As for the price for the 64GB Touch, you'd hope Apple would stick to its "twice the memory for the same price" tradition; in other words, $399 would buy 64GB (rather than 32), $299 would yield 32GB, and $229 would buy you 16 gigs. Hoping for a recession discount? Even in this economy, don't expect Apple to cut prices on its premium iPod model. At least not yet.
As for the rumored addition of GPS capabilities for the Touch, I'm less confident about those arriving in the near term than a memory bump for both the Touch and iPhone. That said, some folks are speculating that Apple will create a new premium Touch (perhaps the Touch Pro?) that adds GPS and higher-memory capacity at the same time. However, I wouldn't expect that sort of change until later this year, possibly when the company refreshes the line in September.
What do you guys think? Anybody else holding out for a 64GB Touch? A 32GB iPhone? And what do you think they'll cost?
- prev
- 1
- next
